Platonism
Hello Rabbi,
Thank you very much for the insightful lessons. I have just listened to the series on Platonism and I have some questions.
You stated that even in the Platonic approach there is a difference between objects and properties. But what is the definition exactly?
In particular, I don’t understand what prevents me from treating an arbitrary collection of properties (as in Borges’ example) as an entity in Platonic semantics whenever this helps me to rationalize some difficulties. Is this just a result of our human intuitions? If so, then it’s quite slippery. It could very well be that at some point a classification of countries according to the amount of peaches they export will be very useful, and then we will conclude that such an idea exists?
Additionally, regarding the second part of the series in which you explained issues in halakha through Platonism. In all these cases – why do we need Plato? All you explained there is that halakha refers to metaphysical beings, nothing was said about an idea that includes all the manifestations of these beings together. What prevents Aristotle from accepting the reality of a man’s wife’s husband, or empty ownership of a slave, but not in the sense of an ‘idea of husbands’ but as individual manifestations of a metaphysical being?
Thank you very much in advance!
I don’t understand the question. If you treat a collection of properties as an object then you are not a Platonist. Nothing prevents you from not being a Platonist, the question is whether you are one or not.
The existence of metaphysical beings is a Platonic matter. Even if you relate a private attribute to a private object. As long as you do not see it as a property but as an object – you are a Platonist.
My definition of an object is not a collection of properties, but I assume the existence of an idea for things that manifest themselves to me as collections of properties (the properties that I identify in common with all horses are interpreted by me as an indication of the existence of the idea of horseness). That is, when in real life I identify something as an object – I assume that an idea exists. It is easy for things like a horse, but when you come to define an idea of abstract things like democracy I ask what the limit is, if only one person refers to something as an object and to the rest of the people it seems to be an unrelated collection of properties – that too has an idea?
Regarding the second part – Why is the existence of metaphysical applications a Platonic matter? So why did you bother to show that the law is Platonic with the help of all these issues, the law is based on the fact that there is a God, a metaphysical being, and necessarily Platonic.
The recognition of others is an indication. But there is no mathematical law for this. Sometimes it means that others do not perceive correctly.
God is not a property of something. Seeing properties, such as red, democratic, triangular, and so on as realizations of an abstract being is Platonism.
Thank you.
Regarding the second part – That's the question. What exactly requires us to arrive at an explanation of an abstract existence. For example, regarding the ’halut eshte ish’. Where is the need to say that there is an abstract existence of the law of a man's wife that exists in a woman? Or regarding a slave – Why do I need to say that ownership is an abstract existence and not simply another law that exists in a slave?
What compels us to claim that there really is a wall in front of us and not just an illusion or imagination? Because we see. We also see the signs, with the eyes of reason. I am not looking for explanations, I just see.
By the way, the one who claimed this was the Talmud and the commentators, not me. I brought evidence for this from contradictory signs and from owners without rights, etc.
Are you trying to make fun of me?
I see the wall, the Platonic beings still not (not even in the eyes of the mind) if the issues can be explained in almost identical divisions only without using Platonism.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
